Venezuela: A Neocolonial Farce

On January 3, I woke up to the news that the US—after increasing military escalation and repeated attacks on Venezuelan vessels and infrastructure in 2025—had launched a strike on Venezuela and abducted the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores to charge them with drugs and weapons offenses. While Venezuela’s Supreme Court ruled for Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez to take over leadership of the country, US President Donald Trump announced that the USA would run Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe and proper and judicious transition” while US American oil companies would begin operations to, as Trump claims, fix infrastructure and improve Venezuela’s economy.

On January 4, I woke up to the news of Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s statement on the US operation against Maduro. In a written statement, he announced that Maduro’s socialist government lacked democratic legitimacy and that “the Venezuelan people have now been liberated from Maduro’s dictatorship.” While Kristersson also calls for adherence to international law and a democratic transition of government, for me, the very word liberated is riddled with question marks.

The US American attacks of 2025, as well as the abduction of President Maduro, were carried out with the justification of acting against criminal organizations and drug trafficking. Prior to this, the president of the USA had signed a convenient executive order to allow for the classification of criminal organizations and drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” Even more noteworthy is that the US government’s actions have sparked domestic criticism since concrete evidence of the attacked vessel’s involvement in organized crime or drug trafficking remains to be found. Moreover, the abduction of Maduro came a day after he announced that he was open to negotiating an agreement with the United States to tackle drug trafficking. 

Since then, Trump has demanded that 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil (which are worth $1.68 to $2.8 billion) be turned over to the United States, sought to legitimize his government’s actions with the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, and threatened several other countries: Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Iran, and Mexico.

In light of these events, is Kristersson right in his assessment that the USA has “liberated” the Venezuelan people from an authoritarian ruler who is involved in drug trafficking? Or is it much more likely that the Trump administration has proceeded to “liberate” the Venezuelan people of their national oil reserves and right to self-determination in a move that is more than reminiscent of colonial theft of natural resources, which we are led to believe are a thing of the past?

The list of criticism and allegations against Maduro and his government is long. However, my aim with this article is neither to defend nor to assess the degree of democracy, legitimacy, and adherence to human rights of the Venezuelan government. These matters deserve an article of their own. The focus of this article lies, instead, on the US government’s actions and questionable motives, as well as the Swedish Prime Minister’s—in my view—questionable assessment of recent events. 

Illustration by Merle Emrich.

There has been a noticeable shift in how the US government has sought to justify their actions against Venezuela: While the attacks of 2025 and the abduction of Maduro were carried out in the name of fighting international drug trafficking, the focus following Maduro’s abduction has been on US involvment in running Venezuela and taking charge of Venezuelan oil for an indefinite period of time under the guise of “fixing” the country’s economy. If the USA’s goal was in fact to tackle drug trafficking and Maduro was in fact involved in Venezuelan drug trafficking, where would the need be for the USA to further get involved in Venezuelan politics—particularly with Vice President Rodríguez taking over from Maduro—and the management of its natural resources?

Does it really require the United States to step in to ensure that Venezuela’s oil reserves are managed to the benefit of the Venezuelan people and not “to enrich all our adversaries around the world and not benefitting the people of Venezuela or, frankly, benefitting the United States and the region,” as United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained. It is a statement that sounds a lot like something uttered during a game of Two Truths and a Lie, and which entirely ignores the role the United States itself has played in shaping the Venezuelan economy.

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976 under President Carlos Andres Perez, but continued to export oil to the USA until the early 2000s. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected president, and more nationalizations followed, particularly those of oil assets, which meant that foreign-owned assets were seized by the Venezuelan state. The government used revenues from its oil industry to fund social programmes and managed to cut poverty rates in half between 2003 and 2007. The first US sanctions on Venezuelan oil were imposed in retaliation for nationalizing US oil assets in 2005. After Chavez’s death, Maduro took over, and in 2017, Trump imposed more sanctions, which were tightened again in 2019.

While the US cannot be solely held responsible for developments within the Venezuelan economy, the role it played cannot be denied, either. In this regard, seemingly altruistic declarations of wanting to get Venezuela’s oil flowing again for the sake of the Venezuelan people should be taken with more than a grain of salt. If the US acted with Venezuela’s best interest at heart, would it not be more beneficial to support Venezuelans directly and make use of local knowledge rather than to bring in a foreign power to rule the country and foreign companies to extract the country’s resources? And thus is revealed the lie in Rubio’s statement.

What remains true is that after the US imposed sanctions on Venezuelan oil, its exports shifted to India and China, which likely does not sit well with the US government. What is also true is that a lack of access to foreign oil reserves is by far less beneficial to the US than direct control of these reserves and their trade.

Underlying the entire issue is Trump’s own reference to the Monroe Doctrine, a declaration from 1823 by the fifth president of the US, James Monroe, which proposes a division of the world into spheres of influence. Under this paradigm, European powers would be in control of Europe and Europe’s colonies while leaving the United States to its own matters. The United States, in turn, would be the hegemonic power on the American continent. In 1904, then-President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary, which affirms the United States’ right to intervene in Latin America to prevent European interference, to maintain stability, and to protect US interests. It can be regarded as the underlying rationale of various US interferences in Latin America, including CIA-backed coups and the support of right-wing politicians against their left-wing opponents. Trump’s reference to the Doctrine and his declaration of going even beyond it, dubbing it the “Donroe Doctrine,” makes clear the colonial grab for power and resources that drives the Trump administration.

The United States’ colonial aspirations become all the more evident in the threats that followed the attacks on Venezuela and the abduction of President Maduro. Both Mexico and Colombia were brought up by Trump in recent days. He accused both governments of allowing or being involved in drug trafficking. Both countries feature in debates about illegal immigration to the US. Both countries have left-wing governments and noteworthy oil reserves. Together with Cuba (a communist state with trade relations with Venezuela), Iran (another country with vast oil reserves and in an ongoing dispute with the US over its nuclear programme), and Greenland with its oil reserves and rare minerals, Trump threatened five countries within the span of a few days.

But what does Kristersson make of Trump’s allusions to taking over Greenland? Does he applaud the US President’s intent of liberating the autonomous territory from its Danish governance and its natural resources? On the contrary. At the annual defense conference in Sälen on January 11, he criticized Trump’s threats and reaffirmed Sweden’s support for Denmark and Greenland. Then, does the Swedish Prime Minister believe in a world not so different from the one Trump is intent on creating? A world where European countries manage their affairs and exercise their (neo-)colonial powers in their own sphere, while the United States government is free to interfere in other countries and exploit their resources as they please, as long as it does not affect Europe?

For my part, what the case of Venezuela has revealed once again—as much if not more than Trump’s colonial aspirations—is the hypocrisy of the West. The same old rhetoric of the barbaric other pitched against the civilized self is used to justify land grabs, theft of natural resources, and the gain of geopolitical power at the expense of other nations, but it has been given a sleek new look. Our civilizing mission is democracy, human rights, and the fight against organized crime. Our barbarians are “criminals” and “terrorists.” And ironically, the United States government, with its pointers to the pursuit of its own interests, emerges as one of the more honest characters from this farce. 

Who would have thought…

Written by Merle Emrich.